Posted on 01/18/2014 8:01:29 AM PST by rootin tootin
In 2012, 95,000 American men, women and children were on the waiting list for new kidneys, the most commonly transplanted organ. Yet only about 16,500 kidney transplant operations were performed that year ... For all the recent attention devoted to the health-care overhaul, the long and growing waiting times for tens of thousands of individuals who badly need organ transplants hasn't been addressed.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I say if you want to go on SSDI, you should have to donate a working kidney.....that’ll stop some of the fraud.
I have no problem with this as long as the market decides what the cost of your organs should be and not the government.
I personally wouldn’t sell my extra kidney for a dollar less than $100,000.
I’m saving all my spare parts. Never know when you or someone in your own family may have need for them.
I have already sold 8 kidneys. Boy are those people bummed, they woke up after a night out on the town missing one of their kidneys.
I donated one of my kidneys to a stranger. I’m glad for the opportunity before money came into the picture. It started a chain of transplants. But I can see why some want to offer money. The rich exploit the poor in foreign lands. It’s tragic. Maybe a better system could help.
This begs a fundamental question: Who owns your body—You or the government?
If the government lays claim, what compensation does an individual receive reference the “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment?
Good God, Arm, don’t give ‘em any ideas.
I won't argue over the intrinsic "value" they provide to the recipients of these organs, but the entire process for preserving and transplanting them is rife with moral and ethical dilemmas that can't easily be reconciled.
1. In the case of an organ harvested from a dead person, there is an underlying incentive to remove the organs while the donor is still alive under the normal, objective standards of defining death.
2. Even the simple act of a competent adult donating an "extra" organ has its problems. A doctor who performs a surgical procedure that neither treats the patient, makes the patient healthier (it actually makes the patient worse off), nor prevents or remedies any medical condition is violating the very first provision of the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm ...").
say do what?
We need more big families.
Was that supposed to be posted in English?
I have joked that the reason why no one saw Tito Jackson anymore was rhat the rest of the Jackson family use him for parts.
I would take the demands that organ donations be free more seriously if the hospitals and doctors on both end of the transplant along with the organ transport company worked for free too. It seems like everyone rakes in the cash from the transplant business except for the organ’s owner.
About a year ago, our church held a meeting re will/trusts and other serious matters.
One of the attendees brought up a serious and interesting point.
Her brother in his 50’s was in an accident and after a few days in the hospital, he was declared brain dead.
His trust and driver’s license showed that he wanted to donate whatever organs were needed at that time.
So the hospital kept his body alive until all of his donated organs were harvested. That took a couple of days.
Very quickly, his widow got a big financial surprise, the hospital had close to $40,000’s of EOL hospital services for the time his body was kept alive for the harvest of his whatevers.
His insurance company refused to pay for those charges because he was legally dead. The hospital aggressively went after the estate and the widow for the charges.
Since then, no one really wants to discuss this hot potato subject. So my wife and I changed our EOL orders, and we are not donators of any organs, tissues or whatever.
What is the reality here re who picks up the cost of keep a body alive after the donor is dead? Is it the recipients or the donor’s family/estate?
I didn’t see your reply before I posted my reply, linked below, re who pays for the costs of keep the donor “alive” until the organs are harvested.
Do you know the answer?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3113079/posts?page=15#15
In the particular case you cited, I would think the recipients of the organs (or the insurance companies who paid for their medical care) should be picking up the tab.
Just step back and think about this objectively. What you have in an organ donation process is an expensive, complex procedure involving hospitals and doctors who are performing surgery on one patient for the sole purpose of providing treatment to another patient whose identity probably isn't even known at the time. It should come as no surprise that these procedures are fraught with legal and financial confusion.
“I’ve had more than one ER doctor tell me never to carry an organ donor card — partly for the reasons you described there.”
We have been told the same thing by ER Nurses/Techs and a couple of ER docs since we went to the meeting I described.
A retired CHP officer told us privately, the same. We thought that he was a little paranoid at the time, re big money can bend a lot of morality from the cop/EMT level to the hosipital.
And it’s not just the money, either. One ER doctor admitted that issues related to harvesting organs were a major consideration in treatment options for trauma patients. Basically, he said that doctors won’t try quite as hard to save your life in some circumstances if they think the benefits of harvesting your organs outweigh the time, the cost and the odds of survival if they render treatment to fix catastrophic injuries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.